Evidence of meeting #11 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was billion.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Mr. Chairman, may I ask you to suspend proceedings for just one minute so that we can consult? That might help speed up the process.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
First, Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your allowing this debate to be held before that on the amendment as such. I believe that enables us, even before we debate the amendment, to really see where each party stands on its commitment to the measures to somewhat soften the crisis in the forestry and manufacturing industries. It is all to the credit of the individuals present that they have made their positions known. In that sense, you have chaired the proceedings well.
The amendment proposed by our Liberal Party friends is obviously not the one we would have liked. However, it must be acknowledged that this amendment contains the observation that the $1 billion in trust is distinctly inadequate. The merit of this amendment is that it informs the Conservative Party that it has not gone far enough in that regard. I think it's a genuine invitation to do more. There's also the fact that we're maintaining that we must report to the House, which makes it possible to continue the debate.
I think that the real value of this committee is that it affords us the opportunity to hold this kind of debate amongst ourselves in the precincts of the House of Commons. For that reasons, we will support Mr. Savage's amendment. So we will vote in favour of the amendment. Of course, it stands at the limit of what we can accept at this time. There shouldn't be any subamendment—we hope not—so that we can vote on the amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
All right, so you'll be supporting that.
I believe we had a list from before.
Madame Savoie, did you want to speak? Then I have Mr. Lake and Ms. Yelich on the amendment.
NDP
Denise Savoie NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you.
It's clear on this side of the table that we all feel very clearly that the government's reaction to this crisis has been inadequate, to say the least.
Ms. Sgro mentioned earlier that we can't tell the government how much, and I certainly don't have those numbers at hand either, but Mr. Savage made the comment before making his motion that there is no surplus from employment insurance because it goes to general revenue. I guess that's technically correct, so it's basically a virtual fund, in a sense.
What is true that no one can deny is that fewer and fewer people have become eligible. That way government has protected itself from the economic changes; fewer people have become eligible, and more women have suffered. Even fewer women than men have become eligible, and more people have been left without skills.
Mr. Lake mentioned I think a reference to the C.D. Howe Institute's report on poverty. It must be the only think tank in Canada saying that, because certainly the TD economic forum report did not concur, and any other serious analysis does not suggest that we're going in the right direction. Yes, we are living in good economic times at the moment. There are many things that are happening around us that could change that radically.
I think it's unfortunate that we have lost the reference to creating a special fund from employment insurance. It would have given a commitment to the people of Canada that we do recognize that workers, employers, and small business contribute to that, and that it can be there in time of need, which isn't the case now. It's like buying insurance for your house and the house burns and you can never collect it. That's the situation people find themselves in, in Canada.
Having said that, I think this is a motion, the way it reads now, that clearly recognizes that the government's reaction is inadequate. It's a motion that blames the government for not responding in a more humane way to this crisis, which, as has been mentioned, is much more pronounced in Quebec and Ontario, and I have to say in British Columbia as well, certainly in the forestry sector with mills closing. I think there are a lot of causes for that, with the softwood lumber agreement. Nevertheless, I think it is a serious crisis, and it does require a stronger response than the government offered in its $1 billion over a number of years spread across Canada.
So I will be supporting the amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you very much.
I have on the list now Mr. Lake and Ms. Yelich.
Mr. Lake.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I have to say it's refreshing to hear a member of the NDP actually acknowledge the current strength of the economy.
I'm interested in the amendment here. It's obviously a political poke in the eye from Mr. Savage, which we're used to seeing. It kind of hearkens back to the start of the committee in this new Parliament, when members from that side were passing motion after motion calling on ministers to resign, or whatever the case, and just kind of playing political games.
I'm going to move a subamendment now. I don't expect it to pass, because it's as ridiculous as the Liberal amendment, but it does make a point. I'd like to remove the words “and the inadequate response of the government to date”, and “improved”. We'll add in that same spot, “and 13 years of inaction by the previous Liberal government, under whose leadership we probably still would not have a softwood lumber agreement”.
I know that Mr. Savage is asking for a few minutes to decide on that one, so we can give him that if he needs it. It seems as if we're going to use up the next 25 minutes of committee talking about this again, instead of dealing with employability and poverty, so maybe we can discuss that. I'm always glad to have a conversation about the total inaction by the previous Liberal government.
It's interesting that I heard someone talking earlier--I think someone from the Liberal side--about Mr. Dion's poverty plan. I would note that if we were to follow the Kyoto pattern, Mr. Dion's poverty plan would raise poverty rates by 33% in just a decade. So that's something to look forward to if we ever have to deal with a government led by Mr. Dion.
Let's discuss.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I have Ms. Yelich on the list.
Do you want to speak to the subamendment?
Conservative
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
I just want to say that I tried, without...because I think it's getting a little ridiculous. The opposition is bringing up these motions and amendments that really don't recognize what the government has done. The government has sat down, with just about every area of the government, and looked at what is necessary, looked at the critical issues. That is why we did put some plans for the forestry industry immediately into place. It ended up being before the budget.
You would have thought that the opposition would be helping us develop some good policies and programs, and maybe some good suggestions for the government through our report, but it looks as if they do not take employability seriously.
I don't know who they speak for when they think the government has not responded, because these programs are starting to become a reality. People are going to start benefiting from them and are benefiting from them.
So for them to suggest that we have done nothing suggests that they want to go into a deficit then. The finance minister has put together numbers, crunched numbers, to make sure that all the sectors....
The Liberals have been in government before, so they do know the competing demands across the board. We talked about child care. We talked about the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. We're trying to address every part of society. Recently it has been the forestry industry. We addressed it immediately, trying to get the targeted initiative for older workers, trying to help these people, as my colleague said, make transitions into other areas in other sectors.
Yesterday, Mr. Chair, you and I were at the sector councils. We heard how excited they are about our employability study. We heard people here asking us to please.... You know, their needs were never just about coming down and doubling the money for everything without having some focus, having some understanding of what the problems were. Some of it was training, some of it was literacy. This is what we're trying to address through this report.
I think these shenanigans that are going on will only cause more problems for us to complete this study and get some of the issues onto the government's agenda. I do not understand why they want to take us into a deficit. They continually talk about how we now have this looming. They don't want to talk about an economy that's right now doing quite well; they want to start talking about the looming economy that is going to be this downturn, so then we have to accept that.
Maybe we should accept that we don't want to get into more deficits. We do not want to go down a path of a deficit and not pay off our debt. We want to go back into productivity and competitiveness. And this is what all of these programs are about. They're trying to get people back in the workforce. They're more about competitiveness, more about productivity.
So I do not understand why we continually talk about a motion. It's just getting really quite ridiculous, and you know that. I'm just so surprised that we can't get back to the employability study.
Mr. Savage, I really thought that you would add a little more to this meeting than you have, because you.... All of us care about poverty. That's why we wanted to get on the employability study, and can't wait to get on the poverty study. We are supposed to be on that immediately.
If Tony Martin were here today, I think he'd be upset with us to know that his poverty study might not see the light of day.
So I really wish we could go back to that. We have to acknowledge what the government has done, or else we're looking at a.... These people are starting to put us into a deficit, around this table, and we haven't even gotten our employability study done.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Ms. Yelich.
I have Mr. Savage and Mr. Lake, on the amended motion.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Just to take Ms. Yelich's words to heart, we on this side will commit to vote on the subamendment, the amendment, and the motion without delay if she'll do the same, and we can do 15 minutes of employability today.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
That's wonderful, so you can eat up three hours of House time debating this, on a concurrence motion in the House, which has been the pattern over and over and over again.
Actually, I would like to get some clarification from the clerk. As I look at the minutes from the other four committees that have the identical, almost identical, motion before them, it seems to me that one committee has actually voted it down, but there are two committees that have agreed to amended versions of the motion and one that has delayed it. So we have two committees that have already done it.
Could you clarify for me, then, in each of these cases, if we were to vote yes as well, conceivably, could concurrence motions be moved in the House on each of these, so that they could eat up a potential of nine hours of House time in total to deal with pretty much the same issue? Is that correct? Yes.
So nine hours of House time could be eaten up by us, potentially saving all of 19 minutes now in committee, if we address Mr. Savage's suggestion there.
Again, I'd point out that it is very, very clear what this is all about, and it's not about the content of the motion itself. If it were, it would have been moved as one motion in one committee. It's clear that this is simply political. It's simply about obstruction. It's simply about eating up more House time—as we've said, nine hours if we pass this, and potentially 12 hours if the other committee decides to pass the same thing.
I would read here, from the minutes from the international trade meeting, the motion that was amended. It looks as though it reads:
That the Committee recommend that the government introduce as soon as possible an improved aid package for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, including trade measures to support these sectors, to consider the recommendations of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, to bring Canada's trade laws into line with the United States and the European Union with respect to anti-dumping measures consistent with WTO guidelines, to carry out open and thorough studies on the impact of all ongoing trade negotiations on the manufacturing sector, and report the adoption of this motion to the House at the earliest opportunity.
The motion was amended by replacing the words “to bring” with the words “consider bringing” in the English version only.
And then there was some deletion here. The motion was amended by deleting all the words after the word “sectors”.
So that was one. I don't need to read the whole motion as amended; I'll save the time there. But it's on a similar topic.
Then there's the motion that we had before the natural resources committee, which says:
Given the seriousness of the crisis rocking the forestry sector, that the committee recommend that the government introduce as soon as possible an improved aid package for the forestry sector to diversify forestry economies, which is to be administered by Quebec, the other provinces and the territories, and that a recommendation be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity following the study of the forestry industry.
I won't read the one the finance committee has voted down at this point, but I will read the one that has been delayed now in the industry committee, which is:
That the Committee recommend to the government, in view of the serious crisis in the forestry and manufacturing sectors, that it implement without delay an improved assistance plan for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, including $500 million to restore Technology Partnerships Canada; $1.5 billion in reimbursable contributions to allow companies to purchase new equipment; a $1 billion diversification fund—
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we have these in front of us. Is there a reason it's necessary to read that out, or has Mr. Lake decided he's going to talk until we don't get a chance to vote? Is that the intent? Because then I would think he's clearly being obstructionist.
Conservative
February 7th, 2008 / 10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I guess, if anything, you could accuse me of being redundant. These are all the same—
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
—so maybe you could accuse me of that. But I am reading separate minutes from separate committees. I know it sounds very redundant, because it's pretty similar to the motion we have before us.
I lost my spot there, so maybe I'll start at the beginning again on this one. This is from the industry committee. It says:
That the Committee recommend to the government, in view of the serious crisis in the forestry and manufacturing sectors, that it implement without delay an improved assistance plan for the forestry and manufacturing sectors, including $500 million to restore Technology Partnerships Canada; $1.5 billion in reimbursable contributions to allow companies to purchase new equipment; a $1 billion diversification fund for the forestry industry, to be administered by Quebec and the provinces and allocated among them based according to the size of their forestry industry; and that the adoption of this motion be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.
This one sounds almost identical to the finance motion, which I will read, actually, because it is interesting that they are almost identical.
The finance motion is the one that was voted down, including by three Liberal members who voted against it and seemed to actually have the interest of Canadians in mind in getting down to the work of the committee. The motion that was moved there was: “That the Committee recommend”--
Conservative
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Lake is just reading the same thing over and over again. He can do that; it's his right. But if he wanted to read something that actually was relevant to the discussion, I have a copy of Stéphane Dion's speech—